KC DOG BLOG

UK reports that people in deprived areas 3x more likely to be victims of dog bites than those in affluent areas

This is a report that's been out for a month or so but my recent hiatus is causing me to "catch up" a little. 

However, in late April, the Health and Social Care Information Center in the UK released a full report on dog bites in the UK.

It found that once again, dog bites are up 6% in the UK -- this is a part of a long-term trend in the number of hospitalizations due to dog bites in the UK that has been going on for years in spite of, or perhaps because of, the nation's insistance on targeting dangerous dogs based on breed instead of based on behavior.

However, maybe the most intereting point of the study is tht they noted that people who lived in the 10% most deprived areas of the nation entered the hospital due to dog bites at a rate of 24.1 persons per 100,000, compared to persons in the the 10% least deprived areas being hospitalized at a rate of 8.1 persons per 100,000.

So, persons living in the least deprived areas of the country were 3x more likely to be victims of dog attacks than people in the most affluent areas.

For several years I've been noting when coving dog attack fatalities in the US that a disproportionate number of incidents happen in areas that are afflicted with very high poverty -- so this mirrors data that we know in the United States as well.

But I think it's very relevant from the standpoint of understanding that there is very strong evidence to indicate that dog attacks are not a breed specific problem, or a problem with dogs in general, but that they're actually a symptom of a larger societal problem in impoverished areas.

The report does not make any conclusions as to why dog attacks are more common in impoverished areas, but based on the evidence I've seen, I have a few theories, some of which are likely working in tandem together to make the statistical difference:

-- Dogs potentially less likely to live in the home as a part of a family unit

-- Inability to afford proper fencing that may lead to dogs being more likely to escape or be chained as a primary form of containment

-- People living in resource deserts are less likely to have access to veterinary instruction or training resources to help identify and deal with problems

-- Dogs may be more likely to roam at large or in packs and these packs less likely to be reported to authorities

-- Higher incidents of dogs being used for guarding or protection purposes

-- Higher incidents of children (the most likely victim) being left unsupervised 

Now, I mention all of this with some caution, because I in no means want to imply that low-income people are bad pet owners. That's simply not a true statement. Keep in mind that even in the areas with the highest likelihood of someone being attacked, only .02% of people were badly injured. Even in the toughest areas of the UK, people are VERY safe from dogs, which is a good testiment to the dogs and the people in low-income neighborhoods.

However, it does point that there does seem to be more likelihood that dogs and people are put in more risky situations in these neighborhoods. So given this, if the goal is to even further minimize dog bites (from an already very low level), figuring out which of the potential options above are the biggest causal factors and helping break down those challenges is the key to creating even safer areas.

It's interesting data -- and hopefully we can further use it to cut the .02% number even lower.

 

Very Good Sentences - why just preaching supervising dogs & children won't work

I confess that while I'm usually a very optimistic person, the skeptical side of me often greets headlines with cynicism. When I saw the headline of this post, I clicked through, prepared to be annoyed -- and instead, found a very thoughtful piece about "Why Supervising dogs and kids doesn't work".  As any regular reader knows, I often talk about the need FOR parental supervision of dogs/child interactions -- so you can understand why I was skeptical. Instead, I was greeted with a very good introductory paragraph:

"It's sound advice given frequently: Supervise your dogs and kids while they're together. Breeders warn parents, 'Don't leave the dog alone with children, no matter how friendly the breed.' Veterinarians advise, "Never leave a dog and a child in the same room together."  Dog trainers explain, "All dogs can bite so supervise your dog when you have children over.'  Everyone knows the drill. SO why doesn't it work? There are an estimated 800,000 Americans seeking medical attention for dog bites each year with over half of these injuries to children ages 5-9?

"The bites are not a result of negligent parents leaving Fido to care for the baby while mom does household chores, oblivious to the needs of her children. In fact, I've consulted with hundreds of dog bite cases and 95% of the time the parent is standing within 3 feet of the child watching both the child and dog when the child was bitten. Parents are supervising. The problem is not lack of supervision. The problem is no one has taught parents what they should be watching."

While I'm not sure I agree with the 95% number the author mentions (and this certainly isn't the case in the really major attacks that make headlines), there is certainly evidence to show that her overall thought is exactly right -- including even very disturbing videos of parents filming dangerous child/dog interactions without any awareness of the canine warning signals. 

She goes on to talk more about what parents should be looking for. This is great, as dog behavior is very predictable, while child behavior is what is  erratic. But I think it's a good reminder to all of us that "supervision" isn't really enough -- knowing what to look for is also required.

The common denominators

So, the past week or so has been a particularly hazzardous week when it comes to toddlers, and dogs. In the US, there have been now three young children killed by dogs in just the past 7 days. 

It's awful.

And while there are people out there who seem to want us to be very fearful of dogs and are trying to create hysteria, they seem to miss that there is a major, common denominator in these cases.

So, in order of their happening, here are the cases: 

Jordon Reed

Kotzebue, AK: 5 year old Jordon Reed was out playing in his front yard on Saturday night when his family reported him missing after he wandered off unsupervised. Local fire, police and search and rescue personel searched for the young boy only to find him dead in a field at 4 am on Sunday morning on the outskirts of town. The boy was determined to have been killed by dogs.

Police captured several free roaming dogs in the area -- one of which was believed to be involved in killing the boy. 

Authorities report that packs of loose dogs have been an increasing problem in the small community. The dog involved in the attack was said to be a loose fugitive from a sled dog "musher's lot". The dog believed to be put down was said to be a "Husky mix".

Earlier this year, the city council passed an ordinance that required people who owned "vicious breeds" to carry insurance for their animals and keep them secured in penned yards. I don't have clarification on what breeds were a part of that ordinance, but it sure seemed like some type of leash requirement may have been in order (although leash laws tend to not be popular in rural settings).

Kotzebue is a small community of about 3200 people. The poverty rate of Kotzebue is about 16% -- about 33% higher than the state average. 

"Daniel"

Gilbert, AZ - An unnamed 2 year old boy was tragically killed by multiple dogs in his babysitter's home. The details of the event are still a little scarce, but according to the reports, the child was a specail needs child that was being babysat along with his four sibblings. There were also four dogs in the home.

At some point, it's being reported that a dog fight broke out among 3 of the dogs, and somehow, the young toddler ended up getting in the middle of the attack.  The 28 year old babysitter was injuried trying to break up the fight between the dogs and the young toddler ended up suffering life-threatening injuries.

While authorites say that they may press charges on the sitter, it may also have been a case of the toddler being in "the wrong place at the wrong time."

Neighbors report that the dogs were usually kept outside.  

The dogs are being described as 'mixed breed pit bulls" although from the visuals, they look more "mixed" than "Breed".

 It's unclear at this point how closely the child and dogs were being supervised, however, I'd contend that no one person can fully supervise 5 children and four dogs by themselves....especially considering that all five of the children were apparently special needs. 

Samuel Zamudio

Colton, CA  - Two year old Samuel "went missing" at around 5:00 on Monday afternoon. After about a 30 minute search, the family found the toddler dead in the back yard of the home apparently killed by one or more of the five dogs that were in the back yard. 

The dogs are being described as "pit bull mixes" -- although the dog in this picture is a mixed breed at most. Neighbors had often complained that the dogs were often kept in a stench an that they seemed "restless and starved for attention".

The boy was visiting some family members. The boy's uncle and grandmother have been arrested on suspicion of felony child endangerment for not properly supervising the 2 year old toddler.

Colton, CA has a poverty rate of 28% -- nearly double the national average -- and poverty does seem to be an influencing factor in this case.

--------------

As you read through the the stories, common denominators arrise. In three of the cases, the toddlers were out in their yard unsupervised. In one case the amount of supervision is undetermined, but 5 special needs children and 4 dogs is a LOT for any one person to adequately supervise.

In all 3 cases there were multiple dogs involved. In all three cases the children were not well-socialized with the dogs. And in all three cases it appears the dogs were not terribly well socialized in the first place. 

Two of the three cases happened in low socio-economic settings, where often dog issues are a symptom of larger social issues that exist in the area.

In all three of the cases the dogs were described as mixed breed dogs. One involved a "husky mix" the other two involved "pit bull mixes" -- although the dogs are very different in appearances and it is highly unlikely that they shared much, if any, genetic lineage.

As much as some sources might like to make this about different breeds of dogs, or dangerous dogs, or whatever, it's not. If we want to solve dog bite issues in this country we should focus on the circumstances, not the "breed" of dog. 

For one, it is most likely that the attacks occurred by mixed breed dogs (which quickly dilute breed traits).  

For another, there clearly other factors involved -- including, most importantly - -the need to adequately supervise children. When young children and toddlers are allowed to roam outside, they quickly become potential victims to a whole host of dangerous things in the world that they are not equipped to understand how to avoid. Meanwhile, it's also important that dogs get socialization -- and not be abandoned in back yard, or allowed to roam freely in packs. 

My heart goes out to all of these families. These are true, tragedies, and all were avoidable.

(Almost) Horrifying Video Highlights why human behavior is so important in judging dog behavior

This video is a few months old at this point, but I just saw it last week and absolutely want to highlight it.

The video below shows a young toddler (maybe 1 1/2 years old), who repeatedly jumps onto a Rottweiler, hugs him, jumps on him, bounces on him, etc. The dog in this case is definitely NOT enjoying the experience and is giving a whole host of warning signals that the child can't identify and the adults in the room ignore (or can't identify) while they laugh and cheer the child on in his antics.

There is not horrific ending to this video. Like so many dogs in this country, the dog removed himself from the situation and avoided biting the child, but I want you to watch the video and ask yourself, if the dog had bitten the child, what would the reaction be?

Would it have bitten because it was a Rottweiler and Rottweilers are aggressive?

Would it have been irresponsible parenting for putting the dog in this situation? 

Would the parents have said "the dog had never shown signs of aggression before, we don't know what happened?"

How would the media have treated the bite? 

How would the local authorities have treated the dog?

Would the city council have met to discuss the need to ban Rottweilers?  Or would they have instead created ownership education training so people would be better equipped to recognize warning signals like the dog was giving? 

This 2 minute video is an excellent demonstration of why it's so important for people to understand canine behavior, warning signals, and why owner education is so important. And it's also a reminder of just how tolerant so many dogs (including most of the ones from breeds that often carry certain stigmas) are with the situations we put them in. And this dog is ROCK SOLID. Thankfully.

 

The anatomy of a dog bite

First of all, I'm going to go on record and say that I've never actually seen a child significantly bitten by a dog. I think the warning signs are usually so readily apparent that paying attention can prevent them most of the time.

But on Saturday, I almost did.

On Saturday, the wife and I went to one of our favorite restaurants for lunch. This place has a very large outside area and people usually are out there with their dogs, children, families, etc. It's a fun place to spend a beautiful weekend day.

There were several dogs there on Saturday (per usual) including one that we had seen there many times -- a large, German Shepherd. The dog is very social and regularly goes from table to table meeting people and playing with other dogs that are there.  In spite of the dog's friendly demeanor, I do want to note that this is a very large, athletic German Shepherd -- and if he wanted to do some damage, I'm pretty sure he'd be more than capable.

Shortly after we sat down, there was an incident in which a young girl (I'm going to say around 20 months old, maybe 2 years) who's parents (I assume) were sitting talking to the dog's owner. They appeared to all be friends. The young girl went up to the dog and grabbed the dog's tail with both hands and pulled -- and I mean PULLED. The dog whirled around and pushed the child with it's nose -- hard enough that the girl's grip was loosed and the dog got away.

Whew.

The parents told the child that maybe she should leave the dog alone. The toddler agreed.

About 10 minutes later, things were relaxed. The dog had settled under the table with a toy of some sort, and the girl had climbed off of her mother's lap and then began to crawl up to the dog under the table. So this child, already having had a close call with the dog (and the dog clearly being no fan) comes up to the dog, with a toy.

I missed this part, but the wife was watching and apparently the dog's demeanor changed dramatically quickly. She stood up and then saw the snarl -- and the girl continued on to the dog. She then said "hey" across the courtyard - enough to break the gaze, for the parents and dog owner to notice and disaster was avoided.

All I could think about as this played out was "this is how these stories I read about happen."  A solid dog, but a child, completely unable to read the dog's signals continues to want to play with the dog in spite of the dog's warnings. It was a disaster waiting to happen.

Fortunately it didn't. It usually doesn't.  But you can sure  see how it does happen sometimes.

New Research Paper - Dog Bite Prevention: An Assessment of Child Knowledge

I spend a fair amount of time on this blog writing about dog bites, and how breed-specific legislation is not the solution to lowering them. And unfortunately there still some who don't want to dive any deeper than "breed" when it comes to bites.

Fortunately, there are other researchers who are doing deep dives to get us more information about bites and how to prevent them. And this study, entitled "Dog Bite Prevention: An Assessment of Child Knowledge" is a good first step.

The report uses a mix of older and newer data (I have some issues with a few of the numbers, but the overall point is still right)-- but essentially notes a lot of information that points to children, ages 5-9, being at far more risk than of being bitten by a dog that most other Americans.

These bites, which often occur to the head, face and neck sometimes have long-lasting injuries -- some of which are phyisical, and many emotional.  According to information they got from the Amerian Society of Plastic Surgeons, there were more than 30,000 reconstructive procedures performed for dog bite injuries in 2009 - -and roughly 16% of all bite cases end up infected. On study (from the United National Children's Fund Alliance for Safe Children) says that dog bites are the #2 cause for children to have to seek medical attention.

In spite of this, the authors note that dog bite prevention education is often ignored -- and hus, they wanted to get a read on how big the gap is in dog bite prevention education.  And it's pretty big.

The study measured statements made by both parents and children (in separate interviews). It was a convenience sample, so it may or may not be truly representative. Of the sample of children ages 5-15, 11% of the children were at the hospital for a current dog bite. 23% were reported to have ever been bitten by a dog. Previous or urrent dog ownership was reported by 72% of the parents/guardians.

A test on some basic dog safety information (which could be subjective, but I think most trainers would agree with most of the study questions/answers), only 57% of the children passed the very basic test.

Significant indicators of passing the test were:

-- Child age, with older children performing better -- children gained .25 in score for every year older they were

-- Parental age -- with older parent having their children perform better

-- Children with non-white parents tended to perform more poorly (children with white parents performed just under a 1 point higher on the test than children with non-white parents.

Among the parents, only 27% said their child had ever recieved proior dog bite prevention education and 88% agreed that they and their children would benefit from this type of education.  But here is the rub, only 26% said they knew where to go to receive dog bite prevention education -- and most thought the right place to receive this was at the pediatrician's office and the Emergency Department.

No significant relationship in passing came from other sociodemographic information or child's gender, level of parental education, household income, dog ownership or previous dog bites in the family.

I don't think most of the results are terribly surprising -- and it seems logical that better understanding of dog bite prevention techniques would cause children to act more safely in their interactions with dogs. While current dog owners would seem to be a recipe for better education, these children are also a bit more at risk because a significant percentage of dog bites happen in the home. 

I think maybe the biggest aha here is that there is a huge need for dog bite education in children -- and such information would likely decrease dog bites to children in these age groups. It is also interesting the huge lack of awareness of even where to find good dog bite prevention information -- which provides a huge opportunity for the animal welfare, veterinary and medical communities to get together to create good information packets available at pediatricians offices (something recommended a decade ago by the AVMA). It is also exciting to see that so many parents are interested in getting dog bite education for their children -- and pretty telling how important this is for younger children.

While dogs remain safe additions to our families, many people simply lack some basic knowledge that would help them minimize risks. Education can be a key component to helping bridge this gap....but takes diving a little deeper into the information about canine behavior and human interactions with dogs. 

Update: You can read the entire study here.

You can't judge dogs without the influence of people

On Sunday, a man in Thailand was attacked and killed by a Golden Retriever that he owned.

That's right. A Golden Retriever. The very same type of dog that is a beloved family dog throughout most of the world.

Like nearly all cases, there is a reason for dog attacking.  According to those close to the situation, they said the victim had owned the dog since he was a puppy and he reportedly had kicked and otherwise abused the dog since the dog was a puppy.

In the dog's final act of retaliation, the owner got what was coming to him.

For people who have experience with dogs, this story is not surprising. The breed of dog in this case, and in all cases, is irrelevant to the story.  The story is about the dog's abuser who created an aggressive dog that, in a last act of retaliation against his abuser bit, and killed the man.

Cases of serious dog bites tend to have this type of story -- they involve a history of abuse by the owner, a dog that has been perpetually under-socialized, a very young child that doesn't recognize the warning signs given by a dog and continues to approach a cornered dog, a pack of dogs that are roaming with no adult supervision

Behind nearly all of these attacks is human interaction with the dog that led to the tragedy.  Unfortunately, it has become common for people like Merrit Clifton and Colleen Lynn to count numbers and completely ignore the circumstances that lead to these attacks.

But what if we could isolate that, say, abused dogs were x% more likely to attack than not abused dogs.  That would seem really relevant, yes?  And then, what if we determined that certain types of dogs were more likely to be in abusive situations than other dogs?  Would we then assume it was the type of dog problem?  Or the abusive situation problem?

Well, dog behavior experts have noted that abused dogs have more behavior issues than non-abused dogs (and this certainly passes the sniff test).  And Pet-Abuse.com has been tracking the number of abuse cases for 'pit bulls' vs all other types of dogs for nearly a decade - and guess what, 'pit bulls' are definitely disproportionately involved in abusive situations.

So, when 'pit bull' type dogs are involved in a disproportionate number of bite incidents (which other than fatality data, there is no real evidence to suggest, but they are over-represented in fatality data), is it because there is something wrong with the dogs?  Or is there a people problem behind the attacks?

And the bigger question:  if you want to solve the problem, do you track down and kill all of the dogs, or do you work to solve the people problem that has created the situation?   (Hint: breed is irrelevant to the situation -- so not dealing with the people issue will cause issues like they have in the UK).

There is no dog problem. With some 78 million dogs in this country, there are very few incidents in which dogs inflict serious injuries on humans. But if you want to solve the problem with these serious injuries, you must solve the problem of the people around the dogs that led to the problem in the first place. Because you can't judge the behavior of the dogs void of information about the people involved in the case. 

Smart people, and people without vendettas have done this. And this is why there is no organization of experts in animal behavior in this country who support breed-specific policies.

Because it's the wrong approach. And ineffective. Fortunately most cities are catching on, and major US cities like Cleveland, Toledo, and Topeka have repealed their breed specific laws just in the past 12 months.

This is good news. Not just for the dogs. But for really improving public safety by focusing on the right issues.

Editor's Note: In regards to a comment below I want to be especially clear on something. Even abused dogs are not necessarily LIKELY to show aggression. In reality, most of the abused dogs we've had have been shy and shut down vs aggressive.  The point of the post is NOT to say that abused dogs are likely to bite people, only that the series of circumstances surrounding major bites must be considered in order to know WHY it happened. Abuse/Neglect can be among those circumstances. Dogs, to their credit, are very unlikely to lash out in this way -- which is why we have as a society recognized them as animals that we can bring into our homes and make a part of our lives.

Four important links for National Dog Bite Prevention Week

This week is national dog bite prevention week.

The week will be blessed with a lot of great information about preventing dog bites and attacks. It will also be sparked by a lot of hyperbole and headlines designed to scare people and drive ratings.  Be smart and recognized the difference.

With that, there are four key stories that launched last week (or over the weekend) that I think are good starting points for National Dog Bite Prevention Week.

#1 - The National Canine Research Council Notes that National Dog Bite Prevention Week is succeeding

The Number of dog bites to postal workers topped out at about 7,000 dog bites to postal workers in 1983. Now, 30 years later, the number is 2,675.  This is a substantial improvement -- and particularly notable as the population of people and the increasing perctage of people who own dogs as pets have driven the number of owned dogs up dramatically during this time.  2,675 is still a lot -- but it is great to see the downward trend.

#2  State Farm  Releases their stats on Dog Bite Claims

State Farm is one of the largest home owner and liability insurance companies in the nation -- and also the largest that does not discriminate on insurance coverage based on dog breeds (except in Ohio -- where they do discriminate because of Ohio State law that declares all pit bulls to be "dangerous").  In 2010, State Farm paid out more than $90 million as a result of nearly 3500 dog bite claims.  In their official press release, State Farm lists their top 10 states for insurance claims. It is interesting to note that Ohio is #3 on the list in spite of the state-wide Breed-Specific legislation and in spite of State Farm's inability to insure 'pit bulls' there. This is the state that has the highest upward swing when compared to overall population  -- again showing that breed specific laws do NOT improve overall public safety -- and arguably make people less safe, not more safe.

I emailed the spokesperson for State Farm to see if they had numbers of bites by dog breeds and she noted that they don't track that information because breed is not a causal factor in bites and because breed identification wasn't reliable in these cases -- something else that has proven to be true over and over again. And you'd bet that a company that has $90 million at stake in this would be making a pretty sound decision.

#3 The US Postal Service Released it's top 55 cities for dog bites to postal workers

  This report has gotten a lot of media play this week.  Mostly, if you look at the list, many of the cities largely fall where they are should based on the size of the populations.  Large cities will have more dogs and likely more bite incidents. Here are a couple of notable areas that have significantly higher bite rankings than their populations would indicate they should have:

Columbus, OH - Tied at #2 in bites, #15 in population

Cleveland, OH - #8 in bites, #45 in population

Cincinnati, OH - #19 in bites, #62 in population

Denver, CO -- #12 in bites, #26 in population

Toledo, OH -- #27 in bites, #66 in population

Arguably no cities have done more harm to 'pit bulls' in the name of public safety than this group listed above - -with all of them being miserable failures in terms of public safety. All of the Ohio cities are under the state-wide breed specific legislation, and Denver and Cincinnati have outright bans on the dogs.  Breed-specific laws do not improve public safety.

Meanwhile, this report has also spurred the fear-mongering that comes with the media. KSHB in Kansas City (you'll see more from them from me this week) reported that "Kansas City is among top cities for dog attacks on mail carriers". Uh huh.  They list Kansas City as ranked #21 (which, the report has the cities numbered oddly and has them listed at 21), but KC actually is tied fore 34th on the list of bites (if you count the number of actual cities) and 37th in total population -- so we're essentially right where we should be for dog bites on postal carriers based on overall population.  But fear mongering is more fun.

#4 Dogs & Storks Proposes a Name Change to the week

They propose "Respect Dogs Week" -- which make a lot of sense.  They have some great commentary on respecting dogs' limits and recognizing warning signs. Very much worth the read.

Also, for your education, doggone safe has put together a quiz to help you understand dog body language to help you stay safe. Take the quiz. I got 9 out of 10 -- and I think the answer to the one I missed was more geared toward kids than someone who has a lot of experience handling dogs that have fear issues -- so I gave myself a pass on it.

Have a good week. 

Dog Attack Fatality Report - why is intact status not part of the report?

Last week I posted a report detailing all of the dog attack fatalities in the US from 2010. There has been a lot of interest in the report, and a few questions that have popped up in personal emails or on chat room boards.

One question that has popped up in several places is the curiosity about intact status of the dogs involved in the attacks.

I left out information on whether or not the dogs were spayed/neutered on purpose for a couple of reasons.

1) It is impossible based on media reports to determine intact status for many of the reports. Usually the only time it is mentioned is if the dog is specifically used for breeding - -so the only time it's mentioned is if it is a positive confirmation that the dog is intact.

2) I am not convinced that a dog being unaltered has a direct causal relationship to the dog attacks.

This second reason may seem controversial to many who have often heard that unaltered male dogs are less aggressive than their altered counterparts.  And yes, there have been statistical studies done that do demonstrate a strong correlation between a dog being intact and bites. But I think we are often too quick to make correlation into causation.

Yes, it's true that many of the dogs involved in the fatal attacks are intact.

However, as I demonstrated in the report, there are several different environmental factors that lead to the attacks, some of which include:

1) A pack of stray/feral dogs -- which would not be altered because they are unowned

2) At least 1/3 of the attacks occurred in areas with very high poverty rates -- it's been well-documented that the #1 reason people don't alter their pets is because they cannot afford to have them altered -- so it should not be a surprise that many dogs owned in poverty-stricken areas would be unaltered.

3) Poor dog ownership practices on the part of the owner - and it should also not be a surprise to anyone that anyone who poorly treats, or neglegently treats their pet would also not go through the effort of having their dog altered (this is not to imply that anyone who doesn't alter their dog is neglegent).

So I have to question, is the fact that the dog is unaltered a reason the dog attacked? Or is it unaltered in part because of the other environmental factors that led to the attack? And the science seems to indicate that there can be increased aggression when a dog is spayed or neutered -- particularly among females.

Meanwhile, I think trying to make a causal relationship between altering and aggression ends up leading city officials down the road of irresponsible legislation like Mandatory Spay/Neter (which I oppose because it not only has potential health risks for the animals that cities shouldn't be impacting, but also leads to more killing in animals shelters in most cases) instead of focusing legislation on the core causes of dog attacks -- irresponsible pet ownership and irresponsible parenting. 

So by design I left out the information on spay/neuter status of the the dogs because until science becomes much more clear that leaving a dog intact causes aggression (or that neuting for sure decreases aggession), I don't want to push information on what, right now, appears to be a non-causal factor in the attacks.  Again, there are some very smart people out there who disagree with me on this -- but there are also a lot of smart ones who agree.

Meanwhile, the one piece of information that I'd love to know on these attacks is at what age the attacking dog was removed from its litter. I've posted before about the importance of bite inhibition in dogs.  While bite inhibition can be taught by humans, it is often best taught in a dog's natural way -- which is through play with its littermates and with its mother during its early developmental months. As I've noted before, it is unrealistic to take a dog from its litter at 6 weeks, chain it to a tree, leave it unsocialized and expect it to have bite inhibition. It won't.  The information isn't readily available (and let's face it, a lot of people would never know that information - particularly for rescued dogs), but it is information that if it were available I'd love to know.

New Dog Bite Study from HCUP (and some thoughts on the media coverage of it)

The Healthcare Cost & Utilization Project just released a new statistical brief on Emergency Department visits relating to dog bites (based on #s from 2008. The study doesn't go into a lot of detail on methodology, but it does seem to be a more comprehensive study than many that are out there.

According to their numbers, there were 316,200 emergency department visits in 2008 from dog bites.  Of those, 9,500 involved overnight stays.

*Now, note that there are 77.5 million owned dogs in the US -- that means that .4% of dogs will be involved in an incident that requires an ER visit and .01% will be involved in an incident that involves an overnight stay.  So with that many owned dogs, only 1 out of 10,000 will be involved in an incident that would require a hospital stay each year.  So dogs are incredibly safe.

Also, according to the study there were more than 30 million emergency department visits a year, and nearly 3 million hospitalizations -- so about 1% of all ED visits and .3% of hospitalizations are from dog bites.

Of the injuries involved in hospitalizations, 43% included skin and tissue infections, 22% open wounds to extremeties, 10.5% open wounds to the head, neck and trunk, 5.3% fractured upper limb, 2.1% tissue disease, 1.1% infective arthritis and osteomyelitis, 1.1% Septicemia, 1.1% crushing injury or other internal injury, 1.1% fractured lower limb.

The total number of of hospitalizations of 9,500 is the highest number since numbers were recorded in 1993.  And the number have been steadily increasing over that time -- however, much of that is due to an increase in population -- as the number of hospitalizations per 100,000 people has been pretty consistently between 2.7 and 3.0 over the past 13 years (with a peak of 3.4 in 1995).  This also doesn't take into account the significant increase in pet ownership over the past 2 decades.

Children 5-9 were most likely to visit an emergency department, followed by children under 5 and children 10-14.

Hospitalizations were most common among older adults 65-84, 85+, followed by children under 5 and children 5-9. This makes sense as the older groups and the younger groups would be more vulnerable.

Not a lot in this study is truly earthshattering. I think most who follow this blog or the work of the NCRC will find these numbers consistent with what they already know.

I think of intrest is how the media has decided to cover this news -- which only wants to focus on the increase in total dog bite cases (without context from the  increase in dogs or people):

Los Angeles Times - Man's Best Friend?  Severe dog bite injuries have increased.

Health Leaders Media - Hospital Admissions, ED Visits for Dog Bites Surge

USA Today - Dog Bites man: Hospitalizations rise 86%

And all of the other reports to date have had similar headlines. So while they could have focused on the bites per capita remaining pretty consistent, or that dogs remain infinitely safer than almost anything else humans come in contact with (including other humans). But the dramatic fear mongering is the lead so far in all cases.

Which then leads me to our 'friend' Merritt Clifton's numbers. Clifton has what he believes to be a detailed dog bite 'study' by breed. Clifton's study covers dog attacks over the past 27 years - and includes 2,695 dog bites - so roughly 100 attacks per year. One hundred attacks per year represents 1% of the total hospitalizations from dog bites each year and .03% of all emergency department visits each year.

Because Clifton relies only on media reports for his 'study', it is not only not complete, it's not a representative sample -- because it is subject to media bias -- which has shown that it would rather focus on the dramatic and fear mongering.  And Clifton buys into it hook, line and sinker.

Public officials need to focus on actual data when making policy decisions.  By doing so, they can make an actual impact on the number of hopsitalizations from dog bites vs paying lip service to it. And the data continues to show that dogs do not represent a major risk in most communities -- and that the majority of the risk involves young children.  That risk can be minimized through educating parents on how to introduce dogs to young children and to never leave their children alone with dogs unsupervised. But making decisions based on actual data, and not dramatized fear-mongering is the only way to make positive steps.